Felix Martos, et. al., vs New San Jose Builders, Inc. |G.R. No. 192!" | #cto$er 2%, 2"12 The liberal construction of the rules may be invoked in situations where there may be some excusable formal deciency or error in a pleading, provided that the same does not subvert the essence of the proceeding and it at least connotes a reasonable attempt at compliance with the rules. F&'(S) New San Jose Builders, Inc. , is engaged in the construction of road, bridges, buildings, and low cost houses. Private respondents were hired by the the petitioner. Sometime in 2, petitioner was constrained to slow down and suspend most of the wor!s on the SJPP pro"ect due to lac! of funds of the National #ousing $uthority. %hus, the wor!ers were informed that many of them &would' be laid o( and the rest would be reassigned to other other pro"ec pro"ects. ts. %hey %hey refuse refused d to sign sign the appoin appointme tment nt papers papers as pro"ec pro"ectt employees and subse)uently refused to continue to wor!. %hree *omplaints for Illegal Illegal +ismis +ismissal sal and for money claims claims were were led led before before the N-* N-* against petitioner and Jose $cu/ar, by private respondents who claimed to be the former employees of petitioner. petitioner. -$ handed down a decision declaring, among among others others,, that that petiti petitione onerr 0eli1 eli1 artos artos was illega illegally lly dismis dismissed sed and entitled entitled to separatio separation n pay, pay, bac!wages bac!wages and other monetary benets3 and dism dismis issi sing ng,, wi with thou outt pre" pre"ud udic ice, e, the the comp compla lain ints ts4c 4cla laim ims s of the the othe otherr complainan complainants ts 5petition 5petitioners6. ers6. Both parties parties appealed appealed the -$ decision decision to the N-*. %he %he N-* N-* reso resolv lved ed the the appe appeal al by dism dismis issi sing ng the the one one led led by respon responden dentt and partia partially lly granti granting ng that that of the other other petiti petitione oners. rs. %he *$ e1plained that the N-* committed grave abuse of discretion in reviving the complaints of petitioners despite their failure to verify the same. Petitioners basically argue that the *$ was wrong in a(irming the dismissal of their complaints due to their failure to verify their position paper. %hey insist that the the lac! lac! of veri veric cat atio ion n of a posi positi tion on pape paperr is only only a form formal al and and not not a "urisdictional defect. #ence, it was not fatal to their cause of action considering that the *$ could have re)uired them to submit the needed verication. ISS*+) 78N the court erred in dismissing the complaints. R*ING) N8. %he liberal construction of the rules may be invo!ed in situations where there may be some e1cusable formal deciency or error in a pleading, provided that the same does not subvert the essence of the proceeding and it at least least conno connotes tes a reason reasonabl able e attemp attemptt at compli complianc ance e wit with h the rules. rules. Besides, fundamental is the precept that rules of procedure are meant not to thwa thwart rt but but to faci facili lita tate te the the atta attain inme ment nt of "ust "ustic ice3 e3 henc hence, e, thei theirr rigi rigid d application may, for deserving reasons, be subordinated by the need for an apt dispensation of substantial "ustice in the normal course. %hey ought to be rela rela1e 1ed d wh when en ther there e is subs subse) e)ue uent nt or even even subs substa tant ntia iall comp compli lian ance ce,, consistent with the policy of liberality espoused by ule 9, Section :.9; Not being being in
they led their motion for reconsideration, but they refused to do so. %he *ourt agrees with the *$ that the dismissal of the other complaints were brought about by the own negligence and passive attitude of the complainants themselves
